Karnataka High Court calls for strict age checks at pubs to keep out minors

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday emphasised that establishments serving liquor including breweries must ensure strict age-verification of its customers, whether through Aadhaar checks or otherwise, before permitting their entry into such places.

Justice M Nagraprasanna held that such establishments cannot view age verification of their customers are empty formalities.

"Breweries and similar establishments, which have proliferated in urban spaces must initiate rigorous age verification protocols, be it through Aadhar or other valid identification, at threshold of entry and further verification should follow, when liquor is ordered by persons who appear youthful or underage. The Breweries or the places where alcohol is being sold cannot be complacent. Age verification cannot be a perfunctory ritual, it must be a living practice by display of conspicuous warnings by insistence upon documentary proof," the Court held.

The Court emphasised that the management of such establishments cannot remain indifferent or wash their hands off if minors somehow gain entry into such places and order liquor.

"The protection of youth is not merely a statutory mandate, it is a moral imperative. The Managements of the places would be held accountable for any lapses," the Court added.

The Court made the observation while refusing to quash a case registered against V Chitti Babu, a partner of Legacy Brewing Company, on allegations that the brewery permitted a 15-year-old boy to consumer alcohol at its premises.

The boy died later the same day after falling from the seventh floor of his apartment complex. The case was initially suspected to be a suicide. However, the investigation took another turn after alcohol was found in the boy's system.

A criminal case was registered against the brewery's representatives under Section 36(1)(g) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

The brewery partner's first plea to quash this case was allowed last month by the High Court on account of the failure by the police to get permission from the Magistrate, as mandated before the registration of crimes involving non-cognisable offences.

Thereafter, a fresh case was registered after getting the requisite permission from the Magistrate. The brewery's partner then moved the High Court again to quash the fresh criminal proceedings registered earlier this month.

The petitioner (brewery proprietor) argued that no liquor was was served at the brewery, and that the minor boy and his friends had snuck in alcohol into the establishment. They were served food and water, but may have consumed alcohol that they themselves brought, the petitioner's counsel argued.

The Court, however, pointed out that the Karnataka Excise Act and the JJ Act penalises even the act of allowing minors to remain in liquor selling establishments.

"The legislative intent is clear. A licensee having been entrusted with the privilege of dealing in intoxicants bears a corresponding and higher duty of vigilance. The law casts upon him, not merely an obligation to refrain from serving minors, but also duty to ensure that minors do not remain in the premises where intoxicants are sold or manufactured," the judgment said.

The Court added that the larger concern in this case was not whether the minor boy was served liquor but how he was allowed to enter the brewery at all.

"The very fact that boys of underage were permitted entry into a Brewery, premises dedicated to the sale and manufacture of excisable articles raises serious concerns," it said.

The Court added that it is also a matter of concern if the liquor establishment was not able to detect that minors were consuming alcohol snuck into the brewery.

"If it is contended that the liquor was consumed without the knowledge of the staff or management, that contention itself necessitates enquiry. It is an admitted norm that liquor from outside is not permitted within such Establishments. If minors could carry intoxicants inside, evade detection and consume them unchecked demands scrutiny. Investigation therefore becomes imperative to ascertain how underage individuals gained entry without age verification; whether any mechanism existed to scrutinize identification of documents; whether supervisory safeguards were in place and whether statutory obligations cast upon the licensee were discharged with the vigilance the law demands," the Court said.

The Court proceeded to dismiss the brewery partner's petition, opining that the case deserves proper investigation and trial.

Advocate Sharath S Gowda represented the petitioner, V Chitti Babu.

Additional State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha represented the State.

[Read Judgment]